End of the road for Eircom's DQ consumer misinformation, but...

eircomtribunal

After two decisions by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (January and April 2005) the BCI (Broadcasting Commission of Ireland) has last week stopped Eircom's ongoing DQ consumer misinformation with its sponsorship of the traffic and travel news on Today/FM.

See today's Sunday Business Post article

ComReg's Tom Butler and Bobby Hannon have hindered my efforts to have ComReg's own (!) October 2004 DQ directive adhered to in the most surreal and despicable way. Both gentlemen acted as if they were on Eircom's payroll. –This is Peter Weigl's opinion alone, nothing to do with IOFFL.

Today/FM has now an advert for Conduits DQ service running, which is also in breach of ComReg's DQ directive. The ad is also on TV (monkey cartoon); I've read about it in last week's Sunday Times, but not seen it. When is it shown?
P.

jwt

quote removed as it kinda defeated the purpose of peter's edit


Care to explain that in greater detail?



Thanks


John

Sponge Bob

Tom Butler has no responsibility for regulation and enforcement of same within Comreg being a PR person whose job it is to disseminate (positive) information on the activities of Comreg .

cgarvey

eircomtribunal wrote:

ComReg's <snip> and <snip> have sabotaged my efforts to have ComReg's own (!) October 2004 DQ directive adhered to in the most surreal and despicable way. Both gentlemen acted as if they were on Eircom's payroll.

Is this the place for such allegations? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. In fact, I'd prefer if you removed them from your post altogether! I see it as being libellous. Like I say I may be wrong, which is why I've left the post intact until I consult with Seamus and the admins, if needs be.

Cheers
.cg

damien

The kind of statement just made by you Peter is damaging to both Boards.ie and IrelandOffline. It is fine to criticise the organisations but I do not think it is right or fair to select two people from an organisation and accuse them of sabotaging anything. They are two hard-working people who have a job to do. You'd swear they sit in their offices and find ways to fck over the people.

If ComReg was a private organisation we'd have solicitors letters delivered by this evening to IrelandOffline and Boards.ie, because they are a public body they are probably taking it on the chin.

I'll happily point out all the flaws of ComReg on this forum but I don't think it is professional to point to a few individuals in the organisation and say they are to blame. It is not a witch hunt we are partaking in.

Sponge Bob

Peter chooses his words carefully so I suspect he has some grounds for his use of the word "hindered" .

Solair

I don't quite understand the fuss over DQ.

They should just be required to state their price per min / connection fees BEFORE your call's put through.

E.g. if you call the hypothetical 11 8 99 you should get

"This call will cost 99 cents for the first 3 mins and 22 cents for each subsequent min.....to continue please wait..."

then.. ring .. ring... and charge from the time that the operator actually answers.

The variable rates that are shown in fine print are competely confusing.

bminish

Solair wrote:

I don't quite understand the fuss over DQ.

They should just be required to state their price per min / connection fees BEFORE your call's put through.

Currently if you dial a number that that has been changed you may get a recorded announcement from Eircom telling you that they are sorry that the number has been changed please call directory enquires on ..... needless to say this is for Eircom's DQ and no mention of any cost associated with the DQ call of course.
Surely they have to mention the Price here too?

.Brendan

eircomtribunal

jwt wrote:

Care to explain that in greater detail?



Thanks


John

Well, I can, but it will probably only increase your difficulties with my accusations against two people in ComReg.

Why I named Tom Butler?

After the BCC had ruled Eircom's DQ TV-weather sponsorship out of order in its January decision, RTE was just in the process (within an hour) of also pulling the Eircom DQ advertisement, as a child of five could see the implications of the BCC ruling on this example of consumer misinforming advertisement, which was clearly in obvious breach of ComReg's decision notice D12/04 "Access to tariff information on Directory Enquiry Services" when RTE got informed by Tom Butler* that the ad in question was in accordance with ComReg's direction. Consequently RTE did not pull the ad and the Irish Consumer was allowed to be mal-informed about DQ costs for another two months. In its April decision the BCC then finally closed down the ad. I'll let you know when RTE will have to air the BCC decision on the case.
* And that would IMO not fall under his PR remit of informing the general public or media on important ComReg issues. But then, on second thought, he could have been only the messenger of the ComReg's Consumer Department decision. And one should not shoot the messenger.

Why I named Bobby Hannan?

He is the manager of Consumer Management in ComReg. He has put down all my requests to act on Eircom's obvious breaches against ComReg's own DQ directive on laughable grounds. In the end the BCC and the BCI (and the ODCA) had to uphold the consumer interest, ComReg failed to to so pathetically.

If IOFFL think this is damaging to their stance, I have no difficulty if you remove the items.

I met John Doherty recently and I don't think that accusations like mine, which are grounded in argument are damaging or could/would be used against IOFFL.

IOFFL have no position on the DQ question. I simply slipped into that matter, because the incapability of ComReg in dealing with a rather simple issue got on my nerves.

The most frightening thing with ComReg's record on dealing with the DQ issue is the fear that they are just as incompetent with the much more important issues of Internet and Broadband development.

I'll change the word "sabotaged" to "hindered" and make clear that this is my opinion and mine alone. And as said earlier I am not offended if you remove whatever you see fit.


P.

removefiannafai

For many years the current administration (Fianna Fail)ignored the free access to premium porno lines,from land lines by all and sundry from ( 5 to 50 years of age),despite the thousands of complaints from irate parents who were landed with huge bills.
What can you expect from a Fianna Fail appointed "comreg" but more of the same.
www.soldiersofdestiny.org

Solair

Regarding the recorded announcements.. yeah i do think those are totally unfair.

Eircom's using them as advertising..

e.g. "This is a recorded announcement from eircom" (goes in on a lot of generic announcements)
and they whack in "or call or directory enquiry service on 1 1 8 1 1" at the end.

Blatent abuse of their monopoly position.

Although, on our exchange.. Wellington Road in Cork.. regardless of what number you dial if it's wrong it'll tell you that's it's "... because the number you have dialled has been changed"...

I assume it's a software glitch!


Oddly enough when I changed over to BT Ireland line rental though, my voicemail box seems to have been "debranded" it's now in a generic british accent yet seems to be the same eircom voicemail system.

ComReg *SHOULD* specify the scripts for network announcements so that they're kept generic, clear and easy to understand and don't unfairly push one company or another.

When's the last time you've ever heard a US announcement start with "This is a recorded message from Verizon or AT&T?"

The eircom messages are generally verbose and far far too long.. they should just get the point across and not waffle on and on about eircom and the fact that it's a recording!

I mean, what's next "the customer you are calling is using eircom's call waiting (Even though they're on BT), please hold while I try to connect you... and while you're waiting, have you considered trying eircom's new talktime anytime? Say yes to speak to an eircom customer service representative or please hold to talk to the person you were actually trying to reach!@ ... remember, you're using eircom! eircom... this call has been processed by eircom. and don't forget eircom loves you! did we forget to mention, we're eircom?!

They're quite clever in the way they've used their "standard voice" as a trademark almost. It's used in all of their communications: voicemail, recorded announcements, if you phone their offices, on their helplines, on their ads, on the weather forecast.. quite sophisticated branding! ... it's even on their website try http://mmm.eircom.ie/mouse/

eircomtribunal

removefiannafai wrote:

What can you expect from a Fianna Fail appointed "comreg" but more of the same.

Like most "party political broadcasts", yours is far off reality. ComReg's failure has nothing to do with party politics. It would be nice if it was that simple. It is institutional failure of another kind.

P.

Blaster99

You guys were obviously not around in the glorious Telecom Eireann days. It used to be a laugh to hear whatever random employee they had gotten to record messages for them. Some of the rural accents were classic.

Solair

Blaster99 wrote:

You guys were obviously not around in the glorious Telecom Eireann days. It used to be a laugh to hear whatever random employee they had gotten to record messages for them. Some of the rural accents were classic.

Yeah I do remember those... It could be anything from Mrs. Doyle to Dustin the Turkey.

Cryos

eircomtribunal,

Altho most of your comments i find here on the irelandoffline forum are normally very constructive and are very well argumented on i might ad, this time you have gone past the line of acceptance and have potentially put the name of Irelandoffline at risk.

And i personally do not want to see the hard work and dedication that IrelandOffline have put into highlighting issues in our Telco system ruined by comments from people like you, they have worked too hard and have gained alot of kudos among the irish consumer to be stopped at this stage in their proceedings.

That is my two cents and what i have to say as regards to what is going on here.

dahamsta

All due respect to the IrelandOffline committee member's tackling ET for his comments, but the "damaging IrelandOffline and Boards.ie" comments are very political and the kind of thing I'd expect from ComReg, not IrelandOffline. ("Bad man said nasty thing about us, boo hoo, IrelandOffline fault, we no meet you" is idiocy and shouldn't be accepted.)

ET's entitled to his opinion, and if his comments are in fact libellous, that's his problem, not yours. By all means disagree, on the record or off, but leave the "bad for us" stuff to politicians, eh?

adam

Cryos

dahamsta wrote:

All due respect to the IrelandOffline committee member's tackling ET for his comments, but the "damaging IrelandOffline and Boards.ie" comments are very political and the kind of thing I'd expect from ComReg, not IrelandOffline. ("Bad man said nasty thing about us, boo hoo, IrelandOffline fault, we no meet you" is idiocy and shouldn't be accepted.)

ET's entitled to his opinion, and if his comments are in fact libellous, that's his problem, not yours. By all means disagree, on the record or off, but leave the "bad for us" stuff to politicians, eh?

adam

Regardless if they are his comments or not Boards.ie and irelandoffline can still take the brunt of a legal matter because boards.ie have provided a space for people to give their opinions, regardless of what claims that they are his own it is the responcibility of boards.ie to deal with what has been said and take action towards it.

As regards your comments ireland offline have been very political about their business, you cannot get anything done with any other tactics and if you think that you can get things done without going through the proper channels well then you go setup your own lobby group because as far as i am concerned ireland offline have been very professional about what they are doing and you obviously fail to see that.

There are no horses heads on the directors of comregs beds when they wake up instead there are press releases and radio interviews.

Once again my two cents

Sponge Bob

Blitz wrote:

There are no horses heads on the directors of comregs beds when they wake up instead there are press releases and radio interviews.

The 'directors' of Comreg should therefore look into this oddity .

One or more of their employees allegedly sought to interfere (by proxy through RTE) with the lawful activities of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (a regulator of equal authority to Comreg ) when the BCI decided that 11811 advertising was wrong under BCI regulations .

The BCI finally stopped listening to the Comreg employees (by proxy through RTE) and banned the advertising anyway on its own bat, no high court case taken either I see because they were right .

Was the content and intent of Comregs own regulations on misleading advertising by its licencees communicated clearly and effectively and even proactively by Comreg employees to RTE and to the BCI ??

The thing that perplexes me is that on the FACE of it both Comreg and the BCI are in FULL AGREEMENT on the issue of misleading advestising by telcos. As the published regulations are similar I fail to see how they could not simply agree a hymnsheet on the implementation of same and do it . ????

dahamsta

I don't agree with your two cents Blitz, particularly on the libel front which I believe to be simply incorrect. But since there's no precedent on the matter in Ireland, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

As to my committment to IrelandOffline, I suggest you do a litle historical research. I'm simply making a point on this one particular topic, not criticising their entire philosophy.

adam

Cryos

dahamsta wrote:

I don't agree with your two cents Blitz, particularly on the libel front which I believe to be simply incorrect. But since there's no precedent on the matter in Ireland, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

As to my committment to IrelandOffline, I suggest you do a litle historical research.

FYI i know your committment to ireland offline, and i see your still apart of it! oh wait your not. We know all about what can be and cannot be posted on webforums on servers owned by companys that are not owned by the user who makes the comments as our business has to be very strict terms on them, so i do know what im talking about when i argue this and so do the boards.ie team so rest it.

dahamsta

No, I'm not officially involved in IrelandOffline, does that mean I'm not allowed to be critical of them if I don't agree with some of their actions? How about if they signed a sponsorship agreement with Eircom, would it be ok to open my mouth then? (This is an "example". It is used for "demonstration purposes".) I'm not a member of the Government either, does that preclude me from criticising them? Would you like us to handle this kind of thing the PRC way?

On the topic of libel, I run Foot.ie so I reckon I'm pretty qualified to comment on libel threats. At the end of the day organisations may waste my time getting access to subscriber information, but I'm not a publisher so as far as I'm concerned the responsibility for a post lies squarely with the person that posted it, and until a judge says different, I'll stick with that opinion thanks. I'm pretty sure Boards has much the same policy.

I'll leave it at that, but you keep battling on if you like. I'd guess the IrelandOffline guys (and gal) knew what I was getting at and likely weren't offended, even if they didn't agree with it, so this is just a waste of time.

adam

Cryos

dahamsta wrote:

No, I'm not officially involved in IrelandOffline, does that mean I'm not allowed to be critical of them if I don't agree with some of their actions? How about if they signed a sponsorship agreement with Eircom, would it be ok to open my mouth then? (This is an "example". It is used for "demonstration purposes".) I'm not a member of the Government either, does that preclude me from criticising them? Would you like us to handle this kind of thing the PRC way?

On the topic of libel, I run Foot.ie so I reckon I'm pretty qualified to comment on libel threats. At the end of the day organisations may waste my time getting access to subscriber information, but I'm not a publisher so as far as I'm concerned the responsibility for a post lies squarely with the person that posted it, and until a judge says different, I'll stick with that opinion thanks. I'm pretty sure Boards has much the same policy.

I'll leave it at that, but you keep battling on if you like. I'd guess the IrelandOffline guys (and gal) knew what I was getting at and likely weren't offended, even if they didn't agree with it, so this is just a waste of time.

adam

Im not going to continue to waste my time on you adam its not worth it, but as you may or may not be aware different companys have different policys but at the end of the day matters relating to published opionions of people are binding on the company that provides the publishing platform so end of argument.

/move on nothing to see here !

removefiannafai

I've gotten myself banned.

dahamsta

Take the site down ET, the last thing you want is an endorsement from this dick.

adam

cgarvey

Right enough is enough.

First off, Peter's post is libellous, at least according to any definition I've ever read.

As he's softened the tone of his original post, I've let it go, without taking any action. There's the bigger question of the damage it does to IoffL, but that's for them to discuss themselves (which I'm sure they will).

Adam and Blitz: Both of you said you didn't want to waste time on each other, yet instead of leaving it at ye go and insult each other. Adam, I see nothing in Blitz' posts to warrant such insults. Any more insults from either of you, and you will be banned.

.cg

oscarBravo

cgarvey wrote:

First off, Peter's post is libellous, at least according to any definition I've ever read.

Only if it's untrue, surely?

dahamsta

cgarvey wrote:

Adam and Blitz: Both of you said you didn't want to waste time on each other, yet instead of leaving it at ye go and insult each other. Adam, I see nothing in Blitz' posts to warrant such insults. Any more insults from either of you, and you will be banned.

I don't want to argue with you cgarvey, but I do need to point something out:

I said I was going to "leave it at that" in post 21, and I haven't addressed Blitz since then. The comment in post 24 was clearly (imho) a reference to the previous post by removefiannafai, who said he was going to link to ET's site. If that's not the insult you're talking about, I honestly don't know where I'm supposed to have done it.

I'll fess up to being scathing, but I'd hardly call that insulting someone. If that's the case I'll need to adjust my entire natural demeanour.

adam

cgarvey

Right Adam, I'll accept that, and take back my "Adam, I see nothing in Blitz' posts to warrant such insults.". It wasn't clear to me (and at least 1 other person).. presumably because the preceeding poster got slapped and the content removed. I'm sure you're not all that offended by anything I could say, but apologies anyway!!

.cg

cgarvey

oscarBravo wrote:

Only if it's untrue, surely?

Correct.. I should have referred to Peter's original post (I am of the opinion that elements of the original post are untrue, defamatory and libellous), rather than the ammended one.

Solair

No offence intended BUT:

This is WAY off topic and more to do with "lets bash eircom and/or ComReg" than Ireland Offline.

I can't see what 11 8 11 or 11 8 50 or any DQ service has to do with broadband in Ireland.

If eircom want to run ads for their DQ service, they should do it within the normal rules that apply to all advertising. If they don't they face consequences. It's up to ComReg to sort out the announcements etc etc.. but I see absolutely no relationship between this and the Ireland Offline agenda at all.

I'm quite sure Conduit is capable of fighting its own corner. They've taken a large chunk of the DQ market already. It's one area where competition is pretty strong. Last I heard Conduit actually had more calls than eircom due to their own intensive ad campaigns and their text back service.

Naming people on a board or a radio phone-in is just going to hurt the people who operate the forum.

Anyway, that's my two cents

jwt

Seeing as it was I who posted the original question mark about Peters post I better clarify something’s.

I asked Peter to explain his comment because I wasn't happy about named individuals being slandered / libelled / defamed (take your pick) publicly on the IOFFL board.

Subsequently I brought it to the attention of other committee members.

On foot of pm’s emails etc Peter posted his reasoning, the ins and outs of which are irrelevant to this conversation (not saying they are incorrect or irrelevant of themselves, in fact I have some sympathy with his feelings).

The critical point is that a) he had some reasoned argument to name specific people b) he felt justified to name them here.

Is it a libellous comment or accusation? I don’t honestly know nor does anyone else either here. In fact, with the current mess in libel laws in Ireland relating to electronic mediums, nobody will know until such time as a test case is heard. I for one do not wish to be a co-defendant in that nor do I wish to put my home up as collateral for the legal fees.

More to the point, I think it unfair to take that risk with someone else’s forum, to risk sabotaging (ahem) the work done so far by the group by posting comments here that clearly go against the wishes of IOFFL. i.e. restrict your comments to the entities not the people. If you disagree with this please feel free to mail, phone or post your comments. But as it stands that is the stated policy here.

Adam, yes it is a political stance. We are a political entity, in the holistic sense of the word. (And no, feelings weren’t hurt )

Cathal, apologies from the committee for putting you in an awkward situation. This kind of stuff is not part and parcel of normal modding duties (at least to this level of finesse)

Finally Peter, I appreciate that you amended your post, thank you. :cool:

The really scary part of this is that someone new to the board, looking at these posts by old hands pushing the law and rules to the nth degree may take it as guidance for the level of posting wanted and allowed. The old hands may know how far to push it but a newbie is more than likely going to step over the line and land us in serious trouble.


Again, if anyone wants to comment on this I and all the committee are contactable. My no. is on the website and a mail to info AT irelandoffline.org will get through. I’ll start a new thread about this if needs be.

Regards

John

Blaster99

Blitz wrote:

Regardless if they are his comments or not Boards.ie and irelandoffline can still take the brunt of a legal matter because boards.ie have provided a space for people to give their opinions, regardless of what claims that they are his own it is the responcibility of boards.ie to deal with what has been said and take action towards it.

The legal advice I've received in the past is that all members of the forum would be liable. I can't remember the reasoning, but I think it has to do with being a member of a club and apparently a forum is a club.

I wouldn't have thought the original thing by eircomtrib was all that bad (or all that interesting but then I can't remember when I last called directory enquiries), but I think eircomtrib could achieve a lot more if he cut out the rantings, particularly on his blog site.

Solair

Is there any chance we could just delete the entire thread?

It's completely irrelevant to Ireland Offline! This is a group that's concerned with access to broadband not what eircom's up to with marketing its directory assistance service!!

eircomtribunal

Solair wrote:

No offence intended BUT:
This is WAY off topic and more to do with "lets bash eircom and/or ComReg" than Ireland Offline.
I can't see what 11 8 11 or 11 8 50 or any DQ service has to do with broadband in Ireland.

One could reasonably argue this issue has no more to do with broadband/Internet/IOFFL than for example the postcode issue.

On the other hand – looking at ComReg's handling of the DQ issue can show us a lot about how this Comreg, which is a crucial institution with regards to our Internet/Broadband situation, functions. When we can see how ComReg is demonstrably not able to deal intelligently, timely and efficiently with a simple single item issue, we have even more reasons to question ComReg's handling of the far more complex and far more crucial issue of Internet and Broadband development.

P.

Sponge Bob

Over time a number of broader regulatory issues have crept into this forum .

The postcode thread is a good one off , Comreg kicked that out to consultants a few weeks back ....nuff said about the vision thing there .

The porn dialler issue (band 13) and dq advertising were one package really. They showed how Comreg tolerated the wholesale creation of pseudo Premium rate services on its patch and how it refused to facilitate the control of expenditure that is your right under the USO :

a) allow the user to control expenditure owing to systemic non disclosure of tariffs contrary to the USO directive
b) how Comreg did not facilitate free opt outs from these things for the consumer, again contrary to the USO ...like you can bar premium rate 15nn numbers free from your line

which all feed into the other great USO fiasco, namely that Comreg when legally forced to introduce a requirement that all analogue copper lines support Functional Internet Access .....went ahead and defined Internet Access to be Functional at 0k

These are all inextricably linked . The common thread is that Comreg is a failed institution that lies and obfuscates while Ireland as a whole is reduced to international economic irrelevance by its decrepit and overpriced telecommunications infrastructure . Thanks for nothing lads.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes ???
Who Watches the Watchmen ???

vinnyfitz

My suggestion Peter:
1. you delete the entire thread or else ask the mods to do so.
2. you then post a new thread for the record setting out in a non personal, and hence less controversial way, the error on comreg's part and the policy issues it raises.

cgarvey

Just to be clear to those who have suggested it, the thread won't be deleted, or moved. Portions of some posts may yet be edited, but not deleted. It's not grossly off topic for this forum, as others have pointed out. Posts within this thread are off topic, and I may split them out later, if the thread doesn't die.

Peter is welcome to edit his posts, if he wishes, and has done already. If anyone wants to edit anything they've said, and can't (because of the time elapsed limit), PM me.

.cg

dahamsta

cgarvey wrote:

Right Adam, I'll accept that, and take back my "Adam, I see nothing in Blitz' posts to warrant such insults.". It wasn't clear to me (and at least 1 other person).. presumably because the preceeding poster got slapped and the content removed. I'm sure you're not all that offended by anything I could say, but apologies anyway!!

Thanks cg. I'm rarely offended, usually more outraged.

Outraged from Cork

Sponge Bob

One emphathises so with poor Blitz when he sallies forth to tilt at the great Panjamdrum of the IoffL forum .

eircomtribunal

vinnyfitz wrote:

post a new thread for the record setting out in a non personal, and hence less controversial way, the error on comreg's part and the policy issues it raises.

Even on third thought I don't understand the fuss about my DQ post creating either a possibility of libel against boards or about my expression of my opinion damaging IOFFL's cause.
But I clearly see the fuss it has caused and I have no interest to create this diversion.
So in hindsight it would have been more intelligent of me to attribute my accusations to Commissioner Mike Byrne, who is responsible for this area but would not dare to eradicate all the opinions expressed by others so far.

(On a general wider note I think a discussion like the one caused by this thread is healthy and I have rather "mixed" feelings about the state of mind which has no difficulty with the notion of making things unsaid, but don't want to discuss this here, nor do I want to have this understood as a personal accusation against any of the people posting here. It just does not taste right. I don't think it is the task of a discussion forum to be sanitised from the start or retrospectively like a final article or book. That's what consecutive posts are for.That's not saying that things should never be edited.)

So I very much welcome cgarvey's stance above.


P.